Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Actual throughput, in Mbps, using all the latest and greatest stuff can far surpass that stated 30 Mbps. If I'm correctly reading some of the stuff I've been reading.

What it said was they DEMONSTRATED 6 HD channels in a 30 Mbps stream. I'm pretty sure that in no way means, or should be understood as, the limit to the throughput on each DirecTV transponder. (or pretty much any other application for that matter)

And thus AMC HD looks bad on all providers, the source feed averages 8-9 Mbps because they're squeezing all 4 Rainbow Media networks on one transponder.

Which is why "bandwidth" is no excuse for DirecTV not having Fuse, IFC and We HD in addition to the currently carried AMC HD. Since all 4 are already in a very tight small footprint payload.

Wouldn't be a surprise if the other 3 "amc networks" end up in HD on DirecTV at some point. I would actually really enjoy those additions too. Compressed or not, they still would look FAR better than overcompressed SD like they are now.

Though they have the luxury of a Ku band license at that location, therefore 8PSK with turbo coded FEC (2/3 instead of 3/5) is how they have much more bandwidth per transponder. If DirecTV tried 8PSK on Ka band, I'm pretty sure the rain fade would be even worse. Oh well DirecTV has to work with the cards they are dealt. Just because someone is born with a disability doesn't mean they can't live a normal life.

Name one other satellite broadcaster other than DISH or DirecTV that has to deal with over 1700 full power licensed stations plus nearly 500 lower power Class A stations. Just because those stations are not all on ConUS beams does not mean they do not need an encoder for each transponder - plus encoders at each point of presence to backhaul the signal to the DBS uplinks.

It sounds like you're making a case for the idea that between DISH and DIRECTV, they've created their own economy of scale.

I'm not asserting that they're not the biggest, just that they don't represent the gamut.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK

Though they have the luxury of a Ku band license at that location, therefore 8PSK with turbo coded FEC (2/3 instead of 3/5) is how they have much more bandwidth per transponder. If DirecTV tried 8PSK on Ka band, I'm pretty sure the rain fade would be even worse. Oh well DirecTV has to work with the cards they are dealt. Just because someone is born with a disability doesn't mean they can't live a normal life.

In fact, there is a general consensus that AMCHD got noticeably better a little while back, some months post-launch on D*. Dunno if it is related.

I still think there'd have to be extra load on the STBs too. Whether that be more processing cycles, or more memory usage for mpeg4 decode, or both. Which makes me wonder if the STB client rewrite was also an enabling, moving part here.

I'm still trying to get my head around this new encoder thing. This is still standard MPEG4, but more efficient? Does it put more of a load on the STB to decode as well? I'd think it'd have to, yet if it is still complying with the MPEG4 standard, presumably any MPEG4-rated STB should be able to decode it?

Which sort of makes me wonder if the rather thorough rewrite of the STB software might have been about more than just the UI. . . optimizing the mpeg4 decode path and providing more head-room for mpeg4 decode load?

It was my impression that the MPEG4 decoding is all done in hardware. That the older MPEG2 was also decoded in hardware.

These DVRS used by either service do not have the CPU power to decode in software. I have a I3 based computer that can barely handle 1080i.

The Processors in the DVRs only have to handle things like the timers, Remote keypress, and the guide (DVR content) and then hand it off to the proper hardware to do the actual functions.

There are many factors that can go into PQ other than bandwidth. Consider it like horsepower. The more you have will make things better but there are also ways to make something just as good with less by being more efficient or having new technology go in. Better encoding, less error correction bandwidth needed, new algorithms to make it faster to decode all of this can get tied in.

+1

And thus AMC HD looks bad on all providers, the source feed averages 8-9 Mbps because they're squeezing all 4 Rainbow Media networks on one transponder.

AMC HD does not look bad to me. Could it look better? Sure... but that goes for all the channels...

Which is why "bandwidth" is no excuse for DirecTV not having Fuse, IFC and We HD in addition to the currently carried AMC HD. Since all 4 are already in a very tight small footprint payload.

The anemic bandwidth given to the networks might mean that they could be easier to fit in, but they still take up space.

AMC looks softer than most other HD broadcasts. Can all be better? Sure.

Right now on NBC, which usually has a very good HD broadcast, the picture is extremely soft- as they're showing a feed from the UK- some Jubilee stuff- obviously very compressed somewhere along the line, though it is their own feed.

AMC looks softer than most other HD broadcasts. Can all be better? Sure.

Right now on NBC, which usually has a very good HD broadcast, the picture is extremely soft- as they're showing a feed from the UK- some Jubilee stuff- obviously very compressed somewhere along the line, though it is their own feed.

AMC's airings of "Mad Men" and "The Walking Dead" look very soft compared to the Blu-ray versions... which is to be expected of any program, but especially so when one is dealing with a show that features a good amount of "grain" in the film stock, or noise in the digital capture. The Blu-ray's higher compression is able to render it more accurately...

However, "Hell On Wheels" which appeared to be shot digitally and had pretty much zero noise, looked amazing on DirecTV.

Though they have the luxury of a Ku band license at that location, therefore 8PSK with turbo coded FEC (2/3 instead of 3/5) is how they have much more bandwidth per transponder. If DirecTV tried 8PSK on Ka band, I'm pretty sure the rain fade would be even worse. Oh well DirecTV has to work with the cards they are dealt. Just because someone is born with a disability doesn't mean they can't live a normal life.

AMC's airings of "Mad Men" and "The Walking Dead" look very soft compared to the Blu-ray versions... which is to be expected of any program, but especially so when one is dealing with a show that features a good amount of "grain" in the film stock, or noise in the digital capture. The Blu-ray's higher compression is able to render it more accurately...

It all depends on the content.

Most movies or shows that are broadcast look soft compared to Blu-ray!

But my comparison is AMC vs. most other 1080i broadcasts. I maintain that AMC is soft due to compression, bit-starving, whatever you wish to call it.

Content quality: Essential! And, as you say, variable. You can ruin a beautifully filmed movie by bit-starving or poor compression, but you can't make a badly filmed piece look great by putting it on Blu-ray or broadcasting it at high rates.

Most movies or shows that are broadcast look soft compared to Blu-ray!

Absolutely...

But my comparison is AMC vs. most other 1080i broadcasts. I maintain that AMC is soft due to compression, bit-starving, whatever you wish to call it.

I only watch original content on AMC, so the only other places I've been able to compare content is from Blu-ray. MM and TWD comparisons fare badly because of the styles of the individual shows. HOW had some AMAZING scenic shots on AMC-HD last year, which tells me that AMC-HD CAN look great... but it depends on the content.

I'm not arguing that a higher bit-rate can't improve the picture, I'm simply stating that AMC-HD (as it is) can be capable of great PQ if the content isn't too challenging.

So now the question is, how much of the 25% gain in channel capacity brought about by the new encoding techologies applies to these numbers. Something like 12.5% reduction in overhead(FEC, etc.) and 12.5% increase in overall throughput? More of one less of the other?

So now the question is, how much of the 25% gain in channel capacity brought about by the new encoding techologies applies to these numbers. Something like 12.5% reduction in overhead(FEC, etc.) and 12.5% increase in overall throughput? More of one less of the other?